Polybius\' description and the Fayum scutum

[Mark Hygate]

As it came up in the other thread when discussing shields, I just thought I'd try to get a better understanding of the actual evidence.

As far as I am now aware, the 'Fayum scutum' has become identified as Roman (against a few other possibilities) and has subsequently become the model for almost every illustration of Republican soldiers I've now seen.

Whilst it has been described as meeting Polybius' description, however, I have to ask whether it actually does? (Particularly if Macedon or others may care to review the translation once again)

My translation (Robin Westerfield) reads: "...a shield with a curved surface, two and a half feet wide and four feet long, and also with a curvature the depth of a palm. The shield is made of two layers of wood glued together, with the outer surface covered in canvas and then calfskin. There is iron edging along its upper and lower rims, to protect the shield against a sword's downward cut and against damage when it is rested on the ground."

Leaping direct to the extreme possible interpretation (for that could cover anything in the middle), I actually see no reason why that couldn't describe an actual rectangular shield, although if it was then I would also wonder why Polybius doesn't explicitly say so (unless the fact that it is curved would distract).

Now, I'm aware also of the Aemilius Paullus monument and the alter of Domitius Aenobarbus friezes and they are very supportive - but I have to wonder. With relatively minor tweaks the average Roman legionary doesn't change his arms and armour over a long period; and I therefore have to wonder how early the rectangular shield that the we all seem to accept later actually appeared?

Side note: The Fauym shield appears to have 3 layers of wood (reconstructed I assume) as opposed to two, but that could certainly be a later 'improvement'

[Bryan]

How early do you think it appeared?

[Michael J. Taylor]

The Fayum scutum may well not be Roman at all, but rather a Ptolemaic knockoff of the Roman shield; however it matches the Pydna and Ahenobarbus shields close enough that it is certainly of Roman design (think of the many states that produce their own identical knock offs of the AK 47; not made in Russia but following the Kalishnikov design exactly).

There is an article by A. Treolar who notes that the 2 1/2 feet in Polybius may refer to the width of the shield before it is curved (the actual width would therefore be somewhat smaller. I believe Peter Connolly's reconstruction of the Fayum scutum started with an 80 cm width (just over 2.5 feet), before being curved down to c. 2 feet.

Michael

[Macedon]

"ἔστι δ’ ἡ Ῥωμαϊκὴ πανοπλία πρῶτον μὲν θυρεός—οὗ τὸ μὲν πλάτος ἐστὶ τῆς κυρτῆς ἐπιφανείας πένθ’ ἡμιποδίων, τὸ δὲ μῆκος ποδῶν τεττάρων, τὸ δ’ ἐπ’ ἴτυος (πάχος) ἔτι καὶ παλαιστιαῖον— ἐκ διπλοῦ σανιδώματος ταυροκόλλῃ πεπηγώς, ὀθονίῳ, μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα μοσχείῳ δέρματι περιείληται τὴν ἐκτὸς ἐπιφάνειαν. ἔχει δὲ περὶ τὴν ἴτυν ἐκ τῶν ἄνωθεν καὶ κάτωθεν μερῶν σιδηροῦν σιάλωμα, δι’ οὗ τάς τε καταφορὰς τῶν μαχαιρῶν ἀσφαλίζεται καὶ τὰς πρὸς τὴν γῆν ἐξερείσεις. προσήρμοσται δ’ αὐτῷ καὶ σιδηρᾶ κόγχος, ἣ τὰς ὁλοσχερεῖς ἀποστέγει πληγὰς λίθων καὶ σαρισῶν καὶ καθόλου βιαίων βελῶν."

"The Roman panoply is first a thureos shield -of which the width of the curved surface is 5 half-feet, the length 4 feet, the (thickness) at the rim besides being a palaeste (1/4 feet)- made of a double planked (surface) made firm with bull-glue, a layer of linen/cloth and after these calf hide is wrapped up over the outer surface. Around the rim, on the upper and lower parts, it has an iron rim, making it safe against the downward cut of swords and to fix in the ground. An iron boss is also attached on it, which protects against the strikes of stones, sarissae spears and the very violent arrows (missiles)."

This is a practically word by word translation of the said text. Note the part about the umbo being used to stop the thrust of the pikes.

[Vindex]

"... on the upper and lower parts, it has an iron rim, making it safe against the downward cut of swords and to fix in the ground. An iron boss is also attached on it, which protects against the strikes of stones, sarissae spears and the very violent arrows (missiles)."...

Thank you for that translation George - could it be that because he says upper and lower parts, it is doubtful he is thinking of a round or oval shield here and , therefore by default, a rectangular shape (as a minimum)?

[Macedon]

In this particular text, there is no mentioning of the shape of the thureos. It should only be understood as "oblong" (hence the term thureos), whether oval or rectangular. The "upper" and "lower" parts need not be straight (nor of course curved).

[Mark Hygate]

Macedon/George,

Thanks heaps for the full translation - I'm more than aware that so much can possibly be lost in translation if one is not careful.

What I am now particularly interested in is your view of the 'palaeste' measurement (palm, roughly ~3in in Greek context?). The translation I have describes to me the depth of the curvature at the centre (ie the perpendicular to the chord); however reading yours, I could possibly take that as the thickness of the shield (including rim) as 3 inches - which would be a serious shield! Albeit that the iron rim could account for several millimeters.....

Along with Vindex, it's elements like the rim edges (which would make more sense to me, indeed, if perhaps they were flatter in context) that prompted my query.


Michael,

Indeed you use the same argument in your essay and I quite understand. If it were just me, however, and I was describing a shield then I would use the straight-line distance to describe it, rather than demonstrating that I used a flexible measuring 'tape'. In addition I would note that, especially when considering the thickness of the shield, introducing a curve into a 30 inch flat where the maximum inflexion is 3 inches, loses something less than an inch overall. I am therefore very surprised by your details of Peter Connolly's recontruction and I can only assume that the curvature induced was much greater.

Curiously I wouldn't have been thinking so hard of the pace in my thoughts if the shield were that narrow!


Bryan - you tease!

Hence the thrust of the question. Without the Fauym shield and the friezes - I might well be thinking that the rectangular shield arrived at the same time as the heavy throwing weapon and 'shortish' gladius......

[Macedon]

a palaeste is 1/4 of a Greek foot so about 7.8 cm or 3 inches. The word "thickness" is not in the original [hence the () ] and it is actually the main topic of Treolar's article (1971), who maintains that the point in question should be read as the depth of the curvature or else the shield would be unwieldy, which is very true. However, the text is not as clear as we would like to here.

[caiusbeerquitius]

It is a general misconception that the rectangular shield was some sort of standard shield. This misconception was apparently sparked by, *surprise, surprise""* Trajan´s Column. If one looks at the rest of the sources it appears that rectangular and oval shields co-existed all the time, looking at the relevant shield bosses, it seems that the oval shield was generally (also during the Principate) the far more common shield form.

[Mark Hygate]

Christian,

I'm not sure anyone is suggesting a global standard; for when (I think we believe) the legionaries may have had rectangular shields, then the auxiliaries (both infantry and cavalry) as well as perhaps legionary 'lighter infantry'/lanciarii had oval shields (as well, indeed, for some cavalry perhaps hexagonal ones).

But, I can't help but think that, if we only had Polybius to go on and not the Fayum shield and the two friezes, then we could believe the legionary shield was rectangular for the legions from Manipular to Middle Imperial perhaps.

I am minded to note that, in the absence of any information at all and one had to come up with a shield design/shape to produce the 'most sensible' testudo (a formation in use throughout those periods), then I would offer a curved rectangular one as the most suitable design (able to tessellate perfectly and leave no gaps).

[Macedon]

... or maybe they had shields shaped like stars, eights etc... Absence of information should not be used very liberally in my opinion.

However, one of the most important problems of rectangular shields is the fact that it does not protect the head of the soldier during hand to hand combat as the head has to stay above the shield rim, whereas, a curved shield, whether round or oval allows him to look at his opponent while partly covering the head from the left. They usually are met in armies which use them in order to make a makeshift wall and hide behind it, often covering archers who shoot at an angle. A testudo, or similar formation (like a foulcon or even a Saxon shieldwall), could as easily be formed with round and oval shields.

[Mark Hygate]

Interesting - as I look at the flat top rim (matched at the bottom both to allow easy placing on the ground and to allow reversal in case of damage) as a positive advantage as it doesn't restrict your vision. [I don't want this to impinge on thoughts in other threads, but this goes hand-in-hand with my shield-to-shield and shoulder-to-shoulder view - for the needed view of the individual is a relatively narrow arc that only covers the enemy soldier to your front and the man either side of him. The close cohesion required to stay shoulder-to-shoulder and keep shields in line requires that side-vision to be unrestricted. Curiously this is where I do allow that element of individuality to intrude, for my shield-to-shield with the Roman scutum as I see it doesn't overlap as many later shield walls (cf Vikings and Saxon) do].

As to shape - unless shields are excessively large, I don't see how oval or round can be used as easily as rectangular to form a testudo without leaving holes/gaps.

[caiusbeerquitius]

the legionaries may have had rectangular shields, then the auxiliaries (both infantry and cavalry) as well as perhaps legionary 'lighter infantry'/lanciarii had oval shields

what makes you think the legionaries exclusively had rectangular shields at a given time? A look at the sources suggests that the rectangular shield was quite common between, say Claudian and Antonine times, but legions also still used the oval shields. You should look at all sources available.

But, I can't help but think that, if we only had Polybius to go on and not the Fayum shield and the two friezes, then we could believe the legionary shield was rectangular for the legions from Manipular to Middle Imperial perhaps.

Luckily we have more sources than these few you name.

I am minded to note that, in the absence of any information at all and one had to come up with a shield design/shape to produce the 'most sensible' testudo (a formation in use throughout those periods), then I would offer a curved rectangular one as the most suitable design (able to tessellate perfectly and leave no gaps).

What makes them better than the Fayum shield? I don´t see much sense in these generalisations based on conjecture. Look at the sources. If you can´t find enough information there, make a proper experiment and surprise us with the outcome. But please, don´t argue with unsupported "ideas". It´s a waste of time. As counter "argument" I could say that in my opinion the shields of the Fayum type are way better suited for a testudo. But then, how often would a Roman soldier actually form one? Weren´t other features far more important? blablabla...

[Mark Hygate]

.....
Luckily we have more sources than these few you name.

................... But then, how often would a Roman soldier actually form one? ............

1 - such as?

2 - any time the soldiers are subject to incoming missiles....... :wink:

[caiusbeerquitius]

1 - such as?

Frescoes and mosaics. As I said, familiarize yourself with the sources, before you make up hypotheses.

2 - any time the soldiers are subject to incoming missiles.......

What are your sources for this statement? I hardly believe that this is the case.